Gamer Sues Sony Over Killzone Multiplayer 1080p Claims

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Gamer Sues Sony Over Killzone Multiplayer 1080p Claims

Douglas Ladore seeks damages for anyone who bought Killzone: Shadow Fall under 'false pretenses.'

When Sony released Killzone: Shadow Fall some gamers were disappointed that its multiplayer mode output was, at best, variable, and certainly not the 1920x1080 standard they were expecting. Douglas Ladore has taken his disappointment to California's District Court and filed a class action against Sony, seeking damages for those who bought the game under what he describes as "false pretenses."

The suit seeks in excess of $5 million, to "restore to Class members any money acquired by means of false advertising (restitution)" as well as cover legal fees. In essence, Ladore's looking to take every dime Sony made from Killzone: Shadow Fall as well as damages, preferably exemplary damages if it can be proven that Sony's conduct as willful.

Sony's position, as reiterated in a March blog post, is that both single and multiplayer output in 1080p, as promised. However multiplayer uses what Sony describes as "temporal projection," utilizing multiple lower-resolution frames effectively stitched together to create the 1080p effect, achieving "subjectively similar" results. Many gamers, Ladore included, found the result unacceptably blurry.

"We recognize the community's degree of investment on this matter, and that the conventional terminology used before may be too vague to effectively convey what's going on under the hood," said Sony in its blog post. "As such we will do our best to be more precise with our language in the future."

The class action specifically references a March Eurogamer article on graphic performance, which did point out the Killzone issue, though at the time Eurogamer wasn't sure what the cause was. The article goes on to warn that achieving an actual 1080p performance isn't as straightforward as many gamers believe.

Anyone seeking the full text of the class action can find it here.

Source: Ars Technica

Permalink

I'm not sure what is more sad, this pointless moronic scam of a suit, or the fact that I bet some people here are on the guy's side just because "gotta stick it to the man, man!!!".

Good luck, I hope he succeeds though I have my doubts. Sonys lawyers will bury him I bet.

While I normally scoff at the low bar for lawsuits in the states, I applaud this effort and hope that it can contribute to teach companies not to bullshit their customers.

While I would normally say 'Jesus Christ States' I recently watched a documentary, and now I'm thinking back to my time in court. There really is no such thing as a frivolous lawsuit. An action like this changes your life. What this man is doing is extreme. There is no 'Lawsuit Lottery.' He is doing the right thing.

Companies need to be held accountable for their lies. If Sony promised true 1080p resolution for their game and didn't deliver, then rock on buddy! Take them for all their worth. Hell, take them for a bit more. Sony can take the hit. Let's hope it's not in a state with an arbitrary cap on damages.

Also, for those who'd immediately disagree with me on the "No such thing as Frivolous Lawsuit" bit... Get educated. Look up "Hot Coffee Documentary" on youtube. It's freely available.

If what the lawsuit claims is correct, then I hope it succeeds, no matter how petty it may seem. Hopefully, it would teach companies not to falsely advertise their games.

major_chaos:
I'm not sure what is more sad, this pointless moronic scam of a suit, or the fact that I bet some people here are on the guy's side just because "gotta stick it to the man, man!!!".

I'm currently involved in such a lawsuit based on a supplement company allegedly falsifying the protein content of their whey protein supplement. I happened across it, thought "What? I've been using that stuff since 2011!" called up the attorney, and sent him my receipts, as well as pictures of the UPCs of the bottles currently sitting in my house. I bought their product, instead of their competitors, because they told me it was something that it, allegedly, is not. Now, I've been told that such lawsuits don't amount to much for the plaintiffs, because any judgement issued are spread across so many plaintiffs that you end up with a $1 per person, or so. Also, I've heard that the law firms involved usually end up screwing the plaintiffs by throwing on "fees and expenses" which result in them receiving most of any money attained, but do I not have the right to sue the company that only received my money because of false advertising?

Arguably, people shelled out money for a PS4, and the PS4 exclusive game in part due to the promise of what the game had to offer. And if they knew that it wouldn't offer that, they may have spend their money elsewhere, or not at all. I think you have every right to sue when facts have been misrepresented.

While I most certainly think that Sony and Guerilla should not get off this false advertising thing with no consequences (nor any other company), I don't think giving some schmucks 5 million will make anything different. We will still get alien: colonial marines and it's ilk.

While I always support (trying to) making companies answer for blatantly false advertising, I don't expect this to go anywhere. I just hope when this case falls on its face it doesn't set any precedent that helps more serious abuses of "subjectively equivalent" advertising to slide by.

tdylan:

major_chaos:
I'm not sure what is more sad, this pointless moronic scam of a suit, or the fact that I bet some people here are on the guy's side just because "gotta stick it to the man, man!!!".

I'm currently involved in such a lawsuit based on a supplement company allegedly falsifying the protein content of their whey protein supplement. I happened across it, thought "What? I've been using that stuff since 2011!" called up the attorney, and sent him my receipts, as well as pictures of the UPCs of the bottles currently sitting in my house. I bought their product, instead of their competitors, because they told me it was something that it, allegedly, is not. Now, I've been told that such lawsuits don't amount to much for the plaintiffs, because any judgement issued are spread across so many plaintiffs that you end up with a $1 per person, or so. Also, I've heard that the law firms involved usually end up screwing the plaintiffs by throwing on "fees and expenses" which result in them receiving most of any money attained, but do I not have the right to sue the company that only received my money because of false advertising?

Arguably, people shelled out money for a PS4, and the PS4 exclusive game in part due to the promise of what the game had to offer. And if they knew that it wouldn't offer that, they may have spend their money elsewhere, or not at all. I think you have every right to sue when facts have been misrepresented.

What brand of protein was it? How did you find out that it was'nt what it said on the tub?

However multiplayer uses what Sony describes as "temporal projection," utilizing multiple lower-resolution frames effectively stitched together to create the 1080p effect

I find this incredibly amusing. The 1080p effect indeed! How tragic that the new consoles have to resort to tricks and subjective effects, particularly in light of audacious claims about the experience. Is the hardware incapable? Is it too new? Are the developers unable to optimise properly? Tricks were the domain of the last, long in the tooth generation where devs had to use any and every trick they could to get something new out of 2005 hardware.

I know people won't like to hear it, but I'll just say "PC" and be done with it.

major_chaos:
I'm not sure what is more sad, this pointless moronic scam of a suit, or the fact that I bet some people here are on the guy's side just because "gotta stick it to the man, man!!!".

While it's not something I'd sue over, describing it as a "pointless moronic scam of a suit" is a bit much - especially since the gaming industry has been skirting the edges of blatantly false advertising for quite a while now.

Wasn't there another thing like this with Street Fighter X Tekken not having online team battles on 360 or something? It was falsely advertised in the manual?

I doubt the lawsuit will pull through, but its annoying when things are falsely advertised in games, especially when its something that was actually wanted.

To me the right thing would be for Sony to just publicly announce they had some wording issues with the 1080p claim, reiterate the way their games are being rendered to give consumers the feel of 1080p and offer a refund for those who want it.

Drop the lawsuit, fix the wrong and come out on top as somewhat of a good guy if you are Sony. At most you may get a few thousand wanting their money back for the game.

Happy world, happy people, can't we all just get along so on and so forth.

Kargathia:

major_chaos:
I'm not sure what is more sad, this pointless moronic scam of a suit, or the fact that I bet some people here are on the guy's side just because "gotta stick it to the man, man!!!".

While it's not something I'd sue over, describing it as a "pointless moronic scam of a suit" is a bit much - especially since the gaming industry has been skirting the edges of blatantly false advertising for quite a while now.

That's basically my opinion here. The lawsuit seems frivolous on first glance, but anything that stops the shitty, shitty advertising lies the AAA games industry has been pumping out over recent years can only be a good thing in my book.

major_chaos:
I'm not sure what is more sad, this pointless moronic scam of a suit, or the fact that I bet some people here are on the guy's side just because "gotta stick it to the man, man!!!".

Not sure how a lawsuit which takes a gaming company to task for false advertising is a "pointless moronic scam of a suit."

Game companies have been doing everything from frequently toeing the false advertising line to outright lying in some cases for years. They absolutely should be held accountable when they get caught and a lawsuit is one way to do that. Calling it sad to support the idea of calling dishonest companies on their bullshit is absurd.

If they were asking for their money back, I would totally be on board.

But 5 million in damages? Nope, you're just being greedy assholes.

So wait, this guy wants to sue for 5 mil. and upwards over a blurry screen on a video game?

Now, I know false advertising is a bad thing and all, and I know legal fees can get pretty hefty in cases like this, but isn't that a bit much? Basically what I'm asking is, if this guy wins, does he get all this money, or will it be distributed to everyone who bought the game? Cuz, if he gets the cash... doesn't that mean he'll be profiting from all the saps who fell victim to the advertisements?

Of course, most of my law knowledge comes from buddy cop movies, so If I'm talking out of my ass, just ignore my comment.

I hope he wins this lawsuit. Not because blurry video games are such a tragedy but because publishers blatantly lying to their customers has become far too common. If he wins this it could open up publishers to more lawsuits (at least in California) for similar reasons. So go get em!

oggebogge91:
While I most certainly think that Sony and Guerilla should not get off this false advertising thing with no consequences (nor any other company), I don't think giving some schmucks 5 million will make anything different. We will still get alien: colonial marines and it's ilk.

IF he wins this it becomes easier to sue over games like Aliens:CM. Wouldn't that be nice?

Vivi22:

Not sure how a lawsuit which takes a gaming company to task for false advertising is a "pointless moronic scam of a suit."

Game companies have been doing everything from frequently toeing the false advertising line to outright lying in some cases for years. They absolutely should be held accountable when they get caught and a lawsuit is one way to do that. Calling it sad to support the idea of calling dishonest companies on their bullshit is absurd.

Saying that Sony should lose every penny they made off a massive project over a graphics technicality that the guy who started this probably didn't even know about till he read the Eurogamer article doesn't strike you as a tiny bit batshit fucking insane? This isn't like Sony got caught in some massive scandalous deception, its a a wording quibble.

tdylan:

Arguably, people shelled out money for a PS4, and the PS4 exclusive game in part due to the promise of what the game had to offer. And if they knew that it wouldn't offer that, they may have spend their money elsewhere, or not at all. I think you have every right to sue when facts have been misrepresented.

If you bought a game solely because OMG1080p and feel the need to sue for 5mil because it was only kinda sorta 1080p my sympathy for you is totally nonexistent. (that was a general statement, not aimed at you personally)

Kargathia:

skirting the edges of blatantly false advertising for quite a while now.

All advertising does, its practically the point. Has been for as long as I can remember, and it was TV, not videogames that set the standard. If someone actually believes that any advertising is 100% true they are at the top of the "at risk to be scammed" list.

*winces* This console generation is just going to be fun, fun, fun, all the way around, isn't it...

'1080p' only refers to the output format. Doesn't matter if it's 320x240 upscaled to 1080p, it's still 1080p. It does not refer to the actual internal resolution of the game, no matter how much people like to use it as such.

Look, I am all against false advertising, and I think companies should pay when they engage in anti-consumer tatics.

But, gee, there is really ANY importance that the multiplayer is not on native 1080p if the system is, indeed, emulating it?!
"Many gamers, Ladore included, found the result unacceptably blurry." What I heard is "many crybabies ended up crying because they wanted their pacifiers corn-flower-blue and they got it light-cerulean".

If I was Sony's lawyer (waiting for your call, Kaz) I would advise them to hurry up and release a patch that made the multiplayer NATIVE 1080 and made the game stutter like a husband meeting his wife in the exit of the whorehouse.
And I would make it optional, so that the players could still play the "blurry" version if they wanted to.
And I would call the optional locked 1080p resolution the "Ladore crybaby mode". (well, not that last one because it would cause an PR nightmare)

YES, Sony could have worded it better, but I don't find what they said false advertising. (it would be another thing if the game was fixed at 720p)
They said 1080p. They delivered 1080p. If the players didn't liked their 1080p, well, though stuff... Don't buy more games from that studio.

I bought (highly discounted) Soul Sacrifice for the Vita and found it painfully bad. By the way, the same happened with Killzone Mercenary, which was incredibly dull.
Should I take them to court for making a bad game and advertising it as a good one?

tdylan:

major_chaos:
I'm not sure what is more sad, this pointless moronic scam of a suit, or the fact that I bet some people here are on the guy's side just because "gotta stick it to the man, man!!!".

I'm currently involved in such a lawsuit based on a supplement company allegedly falsifying the protein content of their whey protein supplement. I happened across it, thought "What? I've been using that stuff since 2011!" called up the attorney, and sent him my receipts, as well as pictures of the UPCs of the bottles currently sitting in my house. I bought their product, instead of their competitors, because they told me it was something that it, allegedly, is not. Now, I've been told that such lawsuits don't amount to much for the plaintiffs, because any judgement issued are spread across so many plaintiffs that you end up with a $1 per person, or so. Also, I've heard that the law firms involved usually end up screwing the plaintiffs by throwing on "fees and expenses" which result in them receiving most of any money attained, but do I not have the right to sue the company that only received my money because of false advertising?

Arguably, people shelled out money for a PS4, and the PS4 exclusive game in part due to the promise of what the game had to offer. And if they knew that it wouldn't offer that, they may have spend their money elsewhere, or not at all. I think you have every right to sue when facts have been misrepresented.

I guess it varies from suit to suit. In the one class action I was party to (against Wal-Mart) I received just over $500, a bit more than I would've earned from 2 weeks pay when I was working there. Wasn't huge but not small either. For the damages that the suit was about and the paperwork I filed, I had expected far less.

On topic - I'm still using my little 29" 720p Samsung from 2007. It's never done me wrong and I haven't really had the money to upgrade to 1080p. My PS4 games look beautiful on it. At a certain point people can become too obsessed with graphic fidelity to just shut up and enjoy their game. So that's my advice. Does it play well? Is it fun? Are the FPS over 30? If so, shut up and play.

major_chaos:

Kargathia:

skirting the edges of blatantly false advertising for quite a while now.

All advertising does, its practically the point. Has been for as long as I can remember, and it was TV, not videogames that set the standard. If someone actually believes that any advertising is 100% true they are at the top of the "at risk to be scammed" list.

You may have slightly missed the point here. Advertising indeed is meant to present its product in as positive a light as possible.
However, there is a line between showcasing positively, and outright lying about your product, and the gaming industry has, on multiple occasions brushed so close past the latter that it'd take a lawyer to explain the difference.

Off the top off my head:

- Aliens: Colonial Marines
- Watch_Dogs "E3 graphics settings"
- heavily suggesting pre-rendered trailers are ingame footage (too many to name)

Are they liable to lose all profit from the latest iteration of Killzone? Probably not. Should the US equivalent of the Advertising Standards Commission have called bullshit years ago? Yes, they should have.

major_chaos:
I'm not sure what is more sad, this pointless moronic scam of a suit, or the fact that I bet some people here are on the guy's side just because "gotta stick it to the man, man!!!".

I knooooow, right? Why should a gamer feel entitled to a game that is as it was claimed to be?

This has to be, like, the lamest reason for a lawsuit ever. What a scam.

Vivi22:

Not sure how a lawsuit which takes a gaming company to task for false advertising is a "pointless moronic scam of a suit."

Well, it's a free market. If the consumer didn't like being lied to, they could just not buy. Oh, sure, some people might say that they had no way to effectively determine such status, but that's just lazy.

Elijin:
If they were asking for their money back, I would totally be on board.

But 5 million in damages? Nope, you're just being greedy assholes.

5 mill for restitution to all members of the class-action suit and legal fees.

Do you honestly think any one person (well, lawyers aside) will see any significant portion of that money? Without factoring legal fees, that's about seven bucks per US customer (assuming physical sales only, mind, so it's probably at least somewhat less). All things considered, do you still think they're greedy assholes?

It's a small problem, but the principle behind it...mmmm. Not sure where I stand on this one. I love Sony, so that may be part of it.

If your figures are accurate, then it just shifts the class action to letting the lawyers pad their pockets with everyones money, which is a shame.

Would rather see a more limited action which resulted in refunds available, but then I have no idea how the US legal system works.

Big_Boss_Mantis:
What I heard is "many crybabies ended up crying because they wanted their pacifiers corn-flower-blue and they got it light-cerulean".

Have you floated this past PC users? Because they're already complaining about games not having 4K support when not even advertised as 4K.

Good. Hold these companies accountable. As for 5 million dollars, if you don't throw a big number at these companies they won't change their tune. They probably won't even change their tune at 5 million dollars either.

major_chaos:
snip

You do realize that the 5 million he's seeking wouldn't go towards him alone, he's filing it as a class action lawsuit, he's probably getting 50 cents off of that if even that much as the judgment would be spread to his representatives and the class as a whole. The class in this case seems to be anyone who bought Killzone which, honestly, is a wonky claim since I don't think everyone buying it was there for true 1080p but, at the same time, false advertisement is false advertisement. The only thing that sends a message better than voting with your wallet is defeating a company in court as that can set a precedent.

The more interesting part of this case is how the judge will weigh the PSN EULA in all of this, since it removes the option for the end user to file a class action lawsuit against Sony. That could probably destroy this case as soon as it enters court.

So good effort, I guess.

Hixy:
What brand of protein was it? How did you find out that it was'nt what it said on the tub?

The brand is Body Fortress. I happened across a video on youtube of a supplement distributor talking about it. The guy can be a little off putting, so I won't link to the video, but here's a link to an article about it:

http://tinyurl.com/qzz2uqz

OT: The message to Sony and the like needs to be "quit false advertising, or you're gonna have to answer for it in the only way you respect - paying money."

There is no hope in this winning, and is no grand cause either. Its resolution, graphics people in a shooter of all things. Don't be a mark and actually care so greatly about such things.

Its false advertisement tthat was used only to hide how pathetic the PS4's hardware actually is.
I am all for him. Never lie on things that can be measured (and WILL be measured). NEVER.
So I hope he wins.

major_chaos:

Vivi22:

Not sure how a lawsuit which takes a gaming company to task for false advertising is a "pointless moronic scam of a suit."Game companies have been doing everything from frequently toeing the false advertising line to outright lying in some cases for years. They absolutely should be held accountable when they get caught and a lawsuit is one way to do that. Calling it sad to support the idea of calling dishonest companies on their bullshit is absurd.

Saying that Sony should lose every penny they made off a massive project over a graphics technicality that the guy who started this probably didn't even know about till he read the Eurogamer article doesn't strike you as a tiny bit batshit fucking insane? This isn't like Sony got caught in some massive scandalous deception, its a a wording quibble.

Who's saying that Sony will lose every penny? 5 million dollars is definitely not every penny. And I don't know if you've noticed but "wording quibbles" are pretty goddamn important in the law.

tdylan:

Arguably, people shelled out money for a PS4, and the PS4 exclusive game in part due to the promise of what the game had to offer. And if they knew that it wouldn't offer that, they may have spend their money elsewhere, or not at all. I think you have every right to sue when facts have been misrepresented.

If you bought a game solely because OMG1080p and feel the need to sue for 5mil because it was only kinda sorta 1080p my sympathy for you is totally nonexistent. (that was a general statement, not aimed at you personally)

Your sympathy levels or lack of them are not relevant. The law does not work on sympathy (or at least I fucking hope not). It's a set of rules and when someone or something breaks those rules they are (in theory at least) held accountable for that. The purpose of such a trial would be to ascertain whether or not the code of law has, in fact, been breached

Kargathia:

skirting the edges of blatantly false advertising for quite a while now.

All advertising does, its practically the point. Has been for as long as I can remember, and it was TV, not videogames that set the standard. If someone actually believes that any advertising is 100% true they are at the top of the "at risk to be scammed" list.

This is a false comparison. What TV advertising does is to try and sell impressions, lifestyles and such but without actually saying that they are. When did you last see a TV advert that said anything factually untrue? You may have to read the small print a couple times but it IS there. But something like this is (arguably at least - that what the law-suit would be for) the same kind of case that forced Carlsberg to change their slogan from "The best beer in the world" to "Probably the best beer in the world".

You can't sue someone for having an opinion or a theory. If Killzone had "the possibility of supporting 1080p resolutions" according to devs etc then there would be no case. But saying it WILL and then not coming up with the goods . . . well thats at least questionable. Certainly imo raises it above the level of morons and scammers.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here